Kim Dotcom Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight, Will Try To Appeal Again

from the this-case-will-never-end dept

Kim Dotcom's ongoing legal saga continues. The latest is that the New Zealand Court of Appeal has rejected his appeal of earlier rulings concerning whether or not he can be extradited to the US. Dotcom and his lawyers insist that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, though there seems to be some disagreement about whether or not that will even be possible. The full ruling is worth a read, though much of it is dry and procedural.

And, I know that many people's opinion of this case is focused almost exclusively on whether they think Kim Dotcom and Megaupload were "good" or "bad," but if you can get past all of that, there are some really important legal issues at play here, especially concerning the nature of intermediary liability protections in New Zealand, as well as the long-arm reach of US law enforcement around the globe. Unfortunately, for the most part it's appeared that the courts have been much more focused on the whole "but Dotcom is obviously a bad dude..." and then used that to rationalize a ruling against him, even if it doesn't seem to fit what the law says.

As Dotcom and his lawyers have noted, this has meant that, while there are now three rulings against him on whether or not he can be extradited, they all come to different conclusions as to why. A key issue, as we've discussed before, is the one of "double criminality." For there to be an extraditable offense, the person (or people) in question need to have done something that is a crime in both the US and New Zealand. As Dotcom has argued over and over again, the "crime" that he is charged with is effectively criminal secondary copyright infringement. And that's a big problem, since there is no such thing as secondary criminal copyright infringement under US law. Since Megaupload was a platform, it should not be held liable for the actions of its users. But the US tries to wipe all of that away by playing up that Dotcom is a bad dude, and boy, a lot of people sure infringed copyright using Megaupload. And all of that may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that they should have to show that he actually broke a law in both countries.

Indeed, the lower court basically tossed out the copyright issue in evaluating extradition, but said he could still be extradited over "fraud" claims. Dotcom argued back that without the copyright infringement, there is no fraud, and thus the ruling didn't make any sense.

The Court of Appeal comes to the same conclusion, but for somewhat different reasons. It appears that Dotcom's lawyers focused heavily on what some might consider technical nitpicking in reading of the law. Pulling on a tactic that has been tried (not successfully...) in the US, they argued that reading through the text of the copyright shows that it only applies to "tangible" copies -- i.e., content on a physical media -- rather than on digital only files. In the US, at least, the Copyright Act is written in such a way that a plain reading of the law says that copyright also only applies to physical goods, rather than digital files. But, as has happened here, US courts have not been willing to accept that fairly plain language in the statute because it would mess up the way the world views copyright. It's no surprise that the New Zealand court came to the same end result. While it would be better if the law itself were fixed, the courts seem pretty united in saying that they won't accept this plain reading of the statute, because that would really muck things up. Unfortunately, in focusing on that nitpicking, it may have obscured the larger issues for the court.

Over and over again in the ruling, the court seems to bend over backwards to effectively say, "look, Dotcom's site was used for lots of infringement, so there's enough evidence that he had ill intent, and therefore we can hand him over to the US." That seems like a painfully weak argument -- but, again, par for the course around Dotcom. So, basically, even though it has other reasons than the lower court, this court says there's enough here to extradite:

We have departed from the Judge in our analysis of s 131.260 But the
Judge’s conclusions on ss 249 and 228 (the latter of which we will turn to shortly)
were not affected by his conclusion on s 131. Each of the ss 249 and 228 pathways
depended on dishonesty, as defined, and the other elements of the actus rei of those
offences. Inherent in the Judge’s finding was that dishonesty for the purpose of s 249
(and s 228) did not require proof of criminal conduct under s 131. With that conclusion
we agree. It is plainly sufficient that for the purposes of s 217 that the relevant acts
are done without belief in the existence of consent or authority from the copyright
owner. It does not need to amount to criminal conduct independently of s 249.
Put another way, “dishonestly” as defined in s 217 is not contingent on having
committed another offence, but is instead simply an element of the offence.

That may be a bit confusing, but basically they're saying it doesn't much matter whether or not there was actual criminal copyright infringement or not, because there was enough "dishonesty" to allow Dotcom to be extradited on other issues.

Again, none of this is that surprising, but it does again feel like the courts reacting to how they perceive Dotcom himself, rather than following what the law actually says. That should worry people. At this point, it seems highly likely that Dotcom's attempts to appeal to the Supreme Court will fail and that he will be extradited. Of course, then there would still need to be legal proceedings in the US -- though the judge assigned to his case has already shown little interest in understanding the nuances of copyright and intermediary liability law, so it's likely to be quite a mess here as well.

Whatever you think of Kim Dotcom, many of the legal arguments against him seem almost entirely based on the fact that people want to associate him with the actions of his users, and the fact that he didn't seem to much care about what the legacy entertainment industry thought of him. Maybe he deserves to be locked up -- but it's hard to argue that the process has been fair and based on what the law actually says.

Re: Re:

The DOJ has vigorously prosecuted this case for 6 years straight. It will bring down the hammer on Dotcom once he's in the U.S. Judge O'Grady will have zero tolerance for Dotcom's games. Trump will not waste a pardon on this guy. Mikey should be stocking up on Forever stamps for the upcoming Pen Pal bromance.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The DOJ has vigorously prosecuted this case for 6 years straight"

Which is the root of the problem in the first place. It never should have started this crusade on the behest of media companies, and then, it has had 6 years to realize what an ass it has been made by them, but it hasn't backed down yet.

Re:

I've never been much of a fan or supporter of Dotcom, whose career I followed long before Megaupload. I've never thought much of the guy at all. But the fundamental issues of law here are important. That you, instead, choose to mock it with prison jokes and make false statements about it says a lot more about you...

Re: Re: Mansick evades again with irrelevant personal opinion.

SO? Far as I've seen, you haven't stated a PERSONAL opinion on founders of Napster, Pirate Bay, Rojadirect, Rapidshare, Aereo, or any other pirate site.

You may actually NOT like Dotcom personally because he's trying to suck up to Trump for a pardon, mentions Seth Rich murdered by DNC, and whatever.

Yet you ALWAYS defend pirates, specifically as right there, pretending that there even are questions of legality. The only question is why NZ courts dither on the obvious. -- And of course most of the answer is that stolen $175 million Dotcom got buys lawyering.

But personal view is indeed irrelevant to the topics you say want discussed.

New readers (if any): Masnick has been chased around by experts and refuses to state his actual position on copyright. Fanboys will claim that Masnick "supports copyright", but in 8 years of reading Techdirt, I've seen thousands of pro-piracy pieces versus a few where he claims is some good to copyright. -- And I've long asked without answer: WHY are the avowed pirates here if Masnick supports copyright?

And say that you thought the coverage was personal attacks -- which means instead of taking the legalistic but immoral, anti-copyright, unlimited "file sharing" position that you wish would have.

As several comments -- most censored -- make clear in that piece, your pro-piracy bias was/is well known. It's not so evident now that most readers including fanboys have given up on the site, since your pro-piracy notions go down roundly every time DO get to a court.

Anyhoo, doesn't matter whether you like Dotcom as a person, you are on his side with regard to piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Mansick evades again with irrelevant personal opinion.

Personal opinion? Dear lord, average_joe's intermittent existence really hit a sore spot in that void you call a heart, didn't it? You would suck the cock off a donkey or eat a baby rather than admit that the laws are imbalanced, poorly thought out, and inconsistently enforced.

Fuck it, the DOJ could declare a new precedent and fight it out there, but instead they decided to hem and haw whether the crime is enough to extradite Dotcom, simultaneously whether he can defend himself against the charges. That's a disgusting way to carry out law, but the protest coming from you, the Prenda fanboy, is no surprise. You'd chop off the wrists of all other humans if it meant no more copyright infringement against your beloved corporations.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hell, ten would be impressive, though assuming they could even offer one I suspect that the 'pro-piracy' stance in any article provided would amount to nothing more extreme than stating that copyright infringement isn't going away any time soon/ever, and/or that it can result in sales down the line making blowing huge amounts of money trying to eliminate it potentially counter-productive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh I haven't either, I just figured that if they want to claim that they've seen thousands they could easily provide ten of them, should they feel that finding thirty as Stephen requested was 'too much work'.

Of course to the surprise of absolutely no-one when faced with a [Citation Needed] and a chance to show those fiends that oppose them how wrong they are by providing said citations they instead seem to have scurried right off. Amazing how those two simple words, either stated directly or implied, appear to act as kryptonite to certain types of people.

Re: Re: Re: Mansick evades again with irrelevant personal opinion.

Re: Re: Re: Mansick evades again with irrelevant personal opinion.

SO? Far as I've seen, you haven't stated a PERSONAL opinion on founders of Napster, Pirate Bay, Rojadirect, Rapidshare, Aereo, or any other pirate site.

My personal opinion on any of those individuals does not matter. Nor does it matter here, but for some reason various trolls (perhaps yourself included) seem to focus in on Dotcom as if I have some sort of personal affinity for him.

And now that I point out that I do not... you still attack me. It's almost as if you're unable to debate honestly.

Masnick has been chased around by experts and refuses to state his actual position on copyright. Fanboys will claim that Masnick "supports copyright", but in 8 years of reading Techdirt, I've seen thousands of pro-piracy pieces versus a few where he claims is some good to copyright. -- And I've long asked without answer: WHY are the avowed pirates here if Masnick supports copyright?

I know of no "expert" who has "chased" me. I've been clear about my position on copyright many times in the past. I support any system that actually does what the Constitution promised: promoting the progress of science. If such a system did that, I would continue to support it. As I have explained many, many times, vast swaths of the current system do not appear to promote progress, and indeed, appear to hinder it.

But figuring out which parts of the system work and which do not would require an awful lot of testing, which I wish were possible. For the most part, little testing is possible, thanks in large part to the Berne Convention and its demands to "harmonize" extreme copyright positions.

I don't "always" defend pirates, contrary to what you say. I recall pointing out that Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum did not appear to deserve to be big deal copyright cases once the details came out (though still think the punishment in those cases was way out of line and unconstitutional as excessive).

Anyway, my concern remains the way copyright is abused in ways that are harmful to civil liberties, to innovation, to free speech and more. I point out the problems with these cases because when people like yourself like to ramrod through "but they're obviously guilty" you tend to miss how these cases will impact everyone else. And that shit is important, no matter how much you wish to ignore it.

Anyhoo, doesn't matter whether you like Dotcom as a person, you are on his side with regard to piracy.

No, I am on his side with respect to due process, civil liberties and making sure that the law does not unfairly punish the wrong person. That is all.

That you can't understand that nuance and wish to lock him up and throw away the key without any due process says an awful lot about you -- and none of it is good.

What Mike says. Without due process, civil liberties and making sure that the wrong person is not punished, we cannot have the rule of law. Instead, we end up with the rule of Mob, or even worse, the rule of Some Judicial Bigwig's personal opinion.

I say that our most important civil liberty is due process, since without it we are at the mercy of whatever mood the law enforcement agencies are in, and that's an arbitrary, scary place to be.

Due process ensures that a person is punished according to which law has been proven to be broken beyond all reasonable doubt. If that is considered an impediment to justice I recommend you recalibrate your idea of justice; it's not what you appear to think it is.

...and once KDC is before the federal district court the prosecutors can present their proof and KDC can challenge such proof. This would have transpired long ago were it not for KDC’s fleeing from one jurisdiction to another, and then employing a small army of lawyers in both NZ and the US to raise a host of what to date have been unsuccessful defenses to avoid extradition to the US.

That “fiction” as you term it has proven, after numerous court hearings and appeals, sufficiently compelling to sustain the positions of the US and NZ governments and to reject those of KDC and his compatriots. Perhaps if you take the time to peruse the attached court decision you will understand why the alleged defendants keep have failed to persuade the courts in NZ with their arguments.

Wow, Mike. You want to "debate honestly"? I've been trying to get you to do that for years, and it seems crystal clear to me that that's literally the last thing you want in the IP policy world. The last thing. Prove me wrong.

Oh, and nice to see the real "censorship machine" of Techdirt is out in force, making sure all comments that challenge the group think are promptly hidden from view. You should be fucking embarrassed, but, sadly, I know you love every second of it.

...but contrary to your claims you ignore every attempt to do so, in favour of lies and personal attacks. As demonstrated right here with your response to Mike's well thought out and honest comment.

"Oh, and nice to see the real "censorship machine" of Techdirt is out in force, making sure all comments that challenge the group think are promptly hidden from view."

No, people block trolls, spammers, assholes and liars. Why do you insist on inhabiting those groups if you're so offended by being hidden (and not censored) by the community that keep trying to kick the drunk dickhead trying to start a fight out of the bar? If you ever tried an honest adult conversation, it would be welcomed.

"I know you love every second of it."

Actually, I'm sure he does. If there was someone even remotely reasonable, honest and rational that was accusing him of such things, he might be concerned someone would take them seriously. Gladly, he has you, and nobody in their right mind would consider Mike was even possibly what you claim he is after reading your comments.

That doesn't seem possible by definition. The trolls aren't interested in an honest debate (especially if they call for one). They try to use civility and honesty against their enemies but won't hold themselves to the same standard. They can't debate because the facts aren't on their side, so they resort to ad hominems and disingenuous calls to support artists (when they're actually supporting the corporations that use and abuse artists). The purpose isn't to debate and convince Mike to change his position. The purpose is to ride him and anyone else they perceive as wrong down and make fun of them and antagonize them. That's the end goal. Policy isn't created here. The only value for trolls is trolling.

Given that a debate involves honest discussion between reasonable individuals, a debate between you and *anyone* - never mind Mike - would be impossible, because all available evidence to date would seem to indicate that you are neither reasonable nor capable of being honest.

Never mind the fact that average_joe absolutely loses his shit whenever someone figures out who his non-signed-in persona is, based on his topical obsessions. Like MyNameHere and out_of_the_blue, he ascribes to the belief that anyone who recognizes him and calls him out must be a member of Techdirt staff tracking his IP addresses.

Also worth noting is the absolute barrage of garbage AJ has flooded the site with, which is public for all to see. If this is what AJ wants going public and attached to a face he's going to be sorely disappointed if he expects respect.

Wow, Mike. You want to "debate honestly"? I've been trying to get you to do that for years, and it seems crystal clear to me that that's literally the last thing you want in the IP policy world. The last thing. Prove me wrong.

And, of course, I have debated honestly with people a lot more well known and important in the space than you. And you know that, because I've pointed it out to you for years. I've debated with top execs from 20th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, the MPAA, the Copyright Office and more.

The problem is that YOU refuse to debate honestly and every time I've tried, you resort to your usual childish temper tantrum tactics. Everyone knows this.

Oh, and nice to see the real "censorship machine" of Techdirt is out in force, making sure all comments that challenge the group think are promptly hidden from view. You should be fucking embarrassed, but, sadly, I know you love every second of it.

As others have noted, people flagging assholes is not "censorship." It's just the community here telling you to stop being an intellectually dishonest trollish asshole. If you can't manage that, well, then perhaps the problem is on your end.

"Censorship machines" is flailing industries (such as the one who pays your salary) begging governments to force censorship on the internet.

Oh, come on, Mikey. Don't give a bunch of bullshit about how you've vanquished bigger fish than me and how I'm unworthy of your brilliant intellect. Stop talking about debating me and actually fucking do it for once.

And give me a break with the censorship thing. Hiding unpopular opinions from view is the definition of censorship. As you well know, even completely non-trollish comments get hidden here because people here don't like the message itself.

The fact that no one takes you seriously enough to actually invite you to a debate with me at a proper venue (whereas you can see from the links above that I get invited to such debates all the time) speaks volumes about what the world thinks of you.

Ah classic AJ...

Now that was a trip down memory lane, though it was rather funny watching AJ admit to being a liar, and then being exposed as, by his own standards, a whiny child who was incapable of debating honestly.

Another One Bites the Dust

Copyright as it is structured in the US can be argued to be unconstitutional. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to set up patents and copyrights for the purpose of promoting useful arts and science. It is understood to be a limited period not something like 150 years or so as it is now.

Re: Another One Bites the Dust

Copyright as it is structured in the US can be argued to be unconstitutional. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to set up patents and copyrights for the purpose of promoting useful arts and science. It is understood to be a limited period not something like 150 years or so as it is now.

Sadly, the US Supreme Court would disagree with you. They found as long as there is a time limit, of any duration, for copyright, it's constitutionally valid. See also [Eldred_v._Ashcroft.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred v. Ashcroft)

I don't agree with that ruling because it effectively allows for copyright durations that may as well be indefinite, for all intents and purposes under the law. But, sadly we have a Supreme Court that assumes the rightsholder's desire to profit overrides any justification the public had for granting the copyright in the first place.

The entire debacle, regardless of what you think of Dotcom as a person, is exactly why we see nonsense like the EU's newest round of copyright madness. Legacy publishers tried going after end users and got lambasted for going after 13 year old kids. They tried going after platform owners (a la Dotcom) and while it may eventually go the way they want, it's taken forever, and the internet's short attention span has largely forgotten him. So, they've decided it's better to chill platform owner's desire to host user content rather than ever risk battling things out in court.

Aren't a bunch of the legal arguments based on him aiding in copryright infringement? I mean, they found emails and chat logs where he and his colleagues sought to use the site for infringing purposes. People are associating Kim with the actions of Mega's infringing users because he didn't care about the infringement and even decided to benefit from it.

Re:

How much of that evidence is admissible. Much of it was obtained without a warrant, and in an illegal manner.

The problem is that every step of the way the NZ and US governments have done so many shady and illegal things to obtain a guilty verdict. Most of the reason this trail has gone on so long has purely been because it seems like the governments assumed that they would never be called out.

Re: Re:

Exactly. He gets the support because of the way this was handled - a military style raid in a country that's not known for such things, at the behest essentially of corporations based in a country the target has never set foot in. Shutting down a business that had many legitimate users with no due process nor trial. Seizing of property and blocking access to said property, much of which he would need access to in order to formulate a defence. Attempts to extradite to a country where it's clear he will not receive a fair trial. Openly illegal actions by authorities in order to achieve all of the above, actions that are far less acceptable to the average person than downloading a movie.

Anyone who thinks defence of Dotcom is support of his infringing activities has to be wilfully ignorant to an astounding degree by this point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mm-hmm. Personally, I dunno if I'm looking forward to the case's outcome or not.

If the US cheats enough to win, then they're setting precedent for prior restraint/seizure, third-party liability, prosecuting citizens of other countries, using fugitive disentitlement against a non-fugitive, the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, and withholding evidence from discovery...I'd like to say that'd cause an uproar, but they're already largely getting away with drone strikes against alleged (not even close to confirmed) terrorists in other countries.

If Kim Dotcom wins, and with all the breaches of due process and fake laws going around it's clear that'll only happen with a proven lack of evidence, the US will likely be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, both owed to Kim Dotcom and to the millions of users who lost data. Which will A) come out of all-important tax money, or B) not be paid at all.

And I suppose there's the possibility that Kim will have an 'accident' before the whole thing ever gets to trial, so that the US doesn't have to give any money back and only has to deal with some accusing looks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I hope they throw Dotcom in a torture cage along with Assange. A fat disgusting blob who sucks Trump's cock and a stinky rapist who licks Putin's asshole -- let them take turns screaming in agony and begging for mercy that never comes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm good with it as long as it's livestreamed - I'd like to kick back with a cold beer and bowl of popcorn and watched the fun. I'd even go for pay-per-view. But I'd want them to be careful: killing them would be easy but disappointing. Keep them alive for months or years, screaming, humiliated, hopeless, suffering. They both certainly deserve a life of unending pain.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't give a fuck about copyright, so can't speak for these others, but Dotcom is one of the assholes pushing Seth Rich conspiracy theories and other extreme right-wing/white supremacist/Nazi bullshit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

something i read earlier is that in Germany now, the court in Hamburg has just ruled that newsnet sites can be held liable for the actions of it's users. this is going to snowball unless lost at appeal. the even more worrying thing is that courts everywhere seem to be doing exactly what the entertainment industries want, changing the way the various countries laws actually read, just to allot wins to the industries. this is handing the internet over to those industries! typically of them, the internet has been the worst thing ever until now when they are getting closer and closer to having that complete control, when suddenly, the internet will become the best thing ever#, simply because they will be able to charge everyone for doing anything!!

Best and funniest outcome

Kim Dotcom getting extradited only for the judge to immediately throw out the case with prejudice and open all involved to a civil rights violations lawsuit and malicious prosecution charges. Sadly they have clearly put way too much effort into railroading for that.

Stolen property

It's no wonder that Kim Dotcom gets some beating in the courts. If the service his company is providing is actually publishing rightowner's material to everyone, there's sevveral importan4t issues: 1) how does competition work when half the material sold on the market is stolen property?2) How is this stolen property substituting valid products with illegal replicas?3) Why does the market go to marketplaces which has the biggest collection of products available, instead of preferring legal (but smaller) players?4) what other vendors could have noticed dotcom's operation before it had huge growth?

Re: Re: Stolen property

> Why do you sting copyright types assume that works bought up by labels and studios are the only works with any value?

Why does pirates think that we want to see jar jar binks yet another time when there would be actual original content available if it wasn't flooded by someone's movie collection?

> Why do you assume that they were the bulk of the files downloaded from the site?

a copied section of 5 words is already enough for copyright infringement. If he had whole files available, it is significantly worse. If he had gigabytes of stuff available in his servers and he had not created it from scratch himself, it's extreamly bad violation.

> Why do you claim he was selling files, when he was selling faster access to all files on the site.

Selling access to whole piracy collection is significantly worse than few files.

> Without a full analysis of files on the servers and logs of what was uploaded and downloaded, how can you claim he was making most of his money from infringing material.

Noone cares where the money is coming from. The material should not be made available. You wouldn't steal a car, now would you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

> without the slightest inkling of irony, in a post in which more than 50% consists of a complete copy and paste

Guess our technology isnt perfect yet. If the starting position is gigabytes piracy collections, its no wonder that the tech vendors havent been able to provide legal solutions yet. Obviously users need to jump ship when something more legal appears or face the fury of the court system.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

> > "Guess our technology isnt perfect yet"

> This has nothing to do with technology.

We consider web platform's decision to enable copy-paste by default to be illegal operation. They had to do it because their platform relies on javascript source code piracy, when copy-paste in view-source dialog is widely used to pirate the source code of all web sites.

> > "the tech vendors haven't been able to provide legal solutions yet

> Once again, a fiction.

This is exactly the same argument what pirates used when they complained that it's impossible for youtube to check the copyright status of every video in their system. Supposedly the technology is not able to do the check properly. If I'm claiming the same thing recarding copy-paste, why is that a significantly more false statement?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

Once again, you remain wilfully ignorant. The technology exists. However, the law allows for subjectivity which cannot be determined by 3rd parties and the people who own the content get this consistently wrong. If Viacom can't even keep track of the fact that they're uploading stuff to YouTube, then it's not a problem with YouTube when they realise they gave them permission to host the wrong files.

Face it, everything you're saying is either nonsense or fiction.

"If I'm claiming the same thing recarding copy-paste, why is that a significantly more false statement?"

Because your claim about copying and pasting is the same grade of bullshit?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

> The technology exists. However, the law allows for subjectivity which cannot be determined by 3rd parties and the people who own the content get this consistently wrong.

so this subjectivity means that if you sue them, they can give their responses before damage awards to the opposing side is granted? Or what does it mean?

> If Viacom can't even keep track of the fact that they're uploading stuff to YouTube, then it's not a problem with YouTube

It's youtube's platform. Youtube is the one responsible for the content displayed in their web page. It's not viacom's problem if youtube's platform has been implemented wrong. It's the publish operation that youtube is doing, which places the responsibility to youtube. While DCMA might give them a little more freedom, they shouldnt need to rely on it -- it would be better if they just followed the copyright of the works they publish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

"so this subjectivity means that if you sue them, they can give their responses before damage awards to the opposing side is granted?"

Ideally, of course. But in that case the issue is between the content owner and the person who infringed, not the random 3rd party they chose to use as a platform.

"Or what does it mean?"

It means that it's impossible for an algorithm to accurately determine the legality of something without human intervention under the current set of rules. Therefore, either the rules need to change, or enforcement needs to allow for the fact that not everything can be caught first time - just as not everything has been caught pre-internet. Neither of these are things that Google can do.

"It's youtube's platform"

Yes.

"Youtube is the one responsible for the content displayed in their web page"

No, the person who uploaded the content is. The postal service isn't responsible if you post something illegal. The phone company isn't responsible for your threatening phone calls. The owner of a wall isn't responsible if someone sprays graffiti on it. The owner of a building isn't responsible if someone decides to shout abuse at someone from there to the street below. In all those cases, it's the responsibility of whoever did the illegal action. Why do you demand that these platforms are treated differently?

"It's not viacom's problem if youtube's platform has been implemented wrong."

But, it wasn't. Viacom uploaded content with express permission to host it. Then, they tried to claim that YouTube were infringing. If the owner of the content is literally lying to them about permission, what can they do?

"it would be better if they just followed the copyright of the works they publish"

No, I'm considering it as "the same file can be either infringing or not infringing depending on factors the AI cannot be aware of, and that Google cannot control, under the current rules. Therefore you either need more than an algorithm, or a change in the rules"

> No, I'm considering it as "the same file can be either infringing or not infringing depending on factors the AI cannot be aware of,

Your evaluation strategy just isn't suitable for computers to execute. Copyright was designed when computers wasn't available, so it's natural that humans are "executing" the steps required to do the checking.

If you want this check to work with computers, you need to design something better, which still solves the problem.

We never claimed that the check would be suitable for computers to execute.

So was banking, but I never hear Wall Street whining that they can't trade with them. But, then, it was them getting the rules designed around their needs, whereas YouTube have been having the rules designed against theirs and the public's.

"We never claimed that the check would be suitable for computers to execute."

But you are demanding that YouTube do so, regardless. Therein lies the problem.

I'm pretty sure he's not trying to demand that YouTube do it; I'm pretty sure he's trying to say "the fact that complying with the requirements of copyright law (or what those requirements should be) can't be done by computers doesn't mitigate YouTube's obligation to comply with those requirements", with the implication that if YouTube can't comply with those requirements - whether by computer or by other means - then that is a problem whose burden should be borne entirely by YouTube, on the basis of YouTube having voluntarily chosen to get into a situation where it can't comply with the law, even if the weight of the burden puts YouTube out of business.

The difference being that he'd probably be just as satisfied if YouTube went out of business as if YouTube found a way to do all the copyright checking which he thinks is, or should be, required by law.

Possibly. Which means, of course, that a *massive* amount of legitimate content is shut down, while platforms that don't even pretend to try and follow the law will pick up the slack for whatever content was actually pirated. Huge losses for everybody - including the legacy industries who do all use it as a distribution platform for their own content to some degree - and zero gain for anybody except the pirates.

Even if he's correct within his own logic, he's coming up with the worst possible solution for the artists he insists he wants to get paid.

> > "We never claimed that the check would be suitable for computers to execute."

> But you are demanding that YouTube do so, regardless. Therein lies the problem.

Copyright rules are in the law. It is assumed that all legimative players in the market are following the law. Each player might do it differently, but they all still need to follow it. They can be sued if it is found that the pattern they are following is not fullfilling the requirements of the law.

This applies to all players in the market, so youtube is no exception. We cannot design laws so that they consider pecularities of individual industries, so the industry itself need to decide what is best practise and how far from the best practise the activity is still acceptable.

But it is not acceptable position to ignore the law simply because following it is more difficult than expected.

It's only impossible or safety issues where temporary exceptions can be granted -- and they better not be caused by sloppy practises or blatant ignoring of the law.

"It is assumed that all legimative players in the market are following the law"

Yes, it is. However, there is an entire legal system to sort out the many, many times where someone may be trying to follow the law but don't, and situations where someone is following the law 100% but someone falsely accuses them of breaking it anyway.

"But it is not acceptable position to ignore the law simply because following it is more difficult than expected"

Nobody is ignoring the law. YouTube have actually gone way, way further to abide by it than most other companies. They have created systems that are impossible in scope and scale for most companies to even consider, and yet you accuse them of doing nothing.

The problem is that you insist on both ignoring the parts of the law that allow things like safe harbours and fair use, while also ignoring that in order to abide by it a court hearing, not an algorithm, is required. YouTube cannot provide the court hearing, no matter how much you beg them.

Yes, by your fictional reality, YouTube are the bad guys. Now, try applying logic to the one that actually exists.

> The problem is that you insist on both ignoring the parts of the law that allow things like safe harbours and fair use,

We call these "exceptions" and they are only temporary. Anyone who relies on it will be in problems when the exception will be removed because it's allowed period has expired. Basically it's not a safe place to be in.

Exceptions are slightly annoying since users will think the temporary exception will free them from the requirements that the law imposes. But that is not truth. The requirement still exists, it's just that someone has found significant/impossible problems from the area, and thus the rules need to be temporarily relaxed. But this does not mean that it wouldnt be better to just follow the copyright's limitations.

The expectation is that the limitations are there for a reason, and overstepping the boundaries of the allowed area has always caused significant problems. When people explore these exceptions and expect them to relieve them from the law's limitations, that just leads the person to even bigger problems.

Computer people usually have this kind of ideas where the limited exceptions are better. This is caused by the fact that they're not using human properties alone, but they have a computer to help them with the tasks. But society needs to work also for the people who do not have access to computers, and copyright law ensures that the limits of what humans can endure are respected, even though technology would allow actions which are not suitable for humans.

No, if they are doing something that's specifically allowed by the DMCA, they are by definition NOT committing copyright infringement. That's why those exceptions exist - to allow people to do things without breaking the law.

I know you hate these exceptions and wish that it was a much more totalitarian system where everything is binary, but while people are doing things that are specifically allowed by the law, then they are not breaking it, even if you wish they were.

> if they are doing something that's specifically allowed by the DMCA, they are by definition NOT committing copyright infringement.

Sure, but the pirates always are doing the copyright infringement first, and then _afterwards_ (when they were sued) trying to figure out excuses why their activity is legal. When the DCMA's requirements are being examined for these people, their claims of following the requirements turn out to be just bullshit, made up stuff simply to keep impression of their activity is following the law. Basically it's just plain old copyright infringement + some bullshit explanation which has no basis in reality. They never planned to follow the (stricter) requirements associated with DCMA.

Funnily enough, that's how law works. Just because we have laws against murder doesn't suddenly mean you keep everybody you personally consider suspicious under 24/7 surveillance and in solitary confinement. (To be fair, it's not as though the government hasn't already tried Minority Level-bullshit, it's just that when they do they suck at it so bad even their proponents have to admit it's not a success.)

and then afterwards (when they were sued) trying to figure out excuses why their activity is legal

Like all the times criminals used the DMCA to demand that Google wipe their unsavory records? Or the time when CEOs of performance rights organizations were caught embezzling funds, or committing software piracy for their office computers? Give me a fucking break.

> You are literally saying that because some criminals may use loopholes to excuse piracy, then legal distribution should be outlawed.

you're the one who wanted to know why exceptions are bad. People are supposed to follow the main rule in copyright laws -- i.e. all copying without license from copyright owners is illegal. The exceptions shouldn't be used as excuse to do copyright infringement -- the main rule _still_ needs to be followed. The exceptions are only for situations where your following of the main rule fails _accidentally_ or temporarily or something. They're limited exceptions because they're not supposed to be used as excuses for not following the main rule.

The fact is that all copying is illegal and exceptions are _not_ changing the situation one bit.

Taking my car is theft... unless I have given you permission to do so, then it's not. The fact that you use the exception of "my friend let me borrow his car" as a defence when the police question you for driving a car you don't own does not mean that you're really a thief.

> the police question you for driving a car you don't own does not mean that you're really a thief.

But the real thiefs are using this property to avoid extensive examination of the situation. They expect that the real rules are so complicated and burdensome to check that noone would actually be able to do the check properly and they would get away with the illegal activity because of that.

Unfortunately for them, it can be simply checked whether he did copyright infringement. Then that alone allows placing 300k damage award to him, with only limited chance of getting away with the exceptions. Miss a deadline for court paperwork and they can assume the 300k damage is actually a real problem.

"But the real thiefs are using this property to avoid extensive examination of the situation"

So? If you think that's a loophole that needs to be closed, then lobby to close it. Until that time, the person who is doing such things is doing so legally.

"Unfortunately for them, it can be simply checked whether he did copyright infringement. Then that alone allows placing 300k damage award to him, with only limited chance of getting away with the exceptions"

So, if you ignore all the rules of copyright and only consider one, you're right. Again, if we follow what the actual law says in the real world, you're still living in a fantasy world.

"The exceptions are only for situations where your following of the main rule fails _accidentally_ or temporarily or something"

You keep making bullshit objective claims, but never seem to back them up with evidence. Could it be that even you know you're lying?

"They're limited exceptions because they're not supposed to be used as excuses for not following the main rule."

Except that's EXACTLY what they are. They exist for situations where it would normally be deemed infringement, but there is a valid reason for copying the material, such as for commentary or parody. If those were covered without exceptions, the exception wouldn't exist. As it is, the true exercise of free speech depends on these exceptions so that people cannot shut down valid speech because they necessarily contain examples of what they're commenting upon.

I know you have a real problem with understanding human interaction and why people do things, but you cannot pretend the law doesn't say what it does. It say that, whether or not some deluded person half a world away things otherwise, there are situation where exceptions apply, and a person is not infringing during those circumstances.

So, you admit that YouTube were the innocent victims of extortion, yet you demand that YouTube are the ones who do things to correct this.

"maybe they didnt pay enough to get premium license"

Please point me towards this "premium licence" and which rules allow people to sue people for content they uploaded themselves if it's not paid. If such a thing does exist, it sounds like extortion to me.

If what you're saying is true, you're supporting a protection racket. Literally stating that organised crime should be the way of business.

> > > Then, they tried to claim that YouTube were infringing.> youTube were the innocent victims of extortion,

extortion seems to be standard business practise in copyright industry. The law guarantees this by allowing reverse lottery.This means the entity that created the community that has copyright infringement involved, will need to prepare for 300k damage awards coming, when content owners find the problems.

> yet you demand that YouTube are the ones who do things to correct this.

If they created the community, they need to ensure that the values of the community are good enough that copyright infringement is handled properly. Copyright owners can check each community by sending test snippets to the community and tracking what happens to the content. If they don't even bother to check the original author name, or whether licenses to the content exists, the leaders of the community can be sued. But it generally depends on how the whole system behaves. Random sampling is enough to detect the behaviour of the community.

If the (previously valid) community turns evil pirates, then the creators of the community didn't spend enough effort to discourage bad behaviour and content owners can sue the central figure in the community.

"extortion seems to be standard business practise in copyright industry. "

Yes, which is why it desperately needs reform. So, again, why are you here defending it so vigorously? Why are you demanding that impossible burdens be placed on people who cannot possibly reach the standards you insist upon?

Are you calling for an end to anything with user generated content? If so, you may like to leave, since every comment is such a contribution, and who knows if you have the permission of whichever bot randomly generates the words for you?

> Why are you demanding that impossible burdens be placed on people who cannot possibly reach the standards you insist upon?

Well, I implemented similar stuff myself first. Obviously I don't require other people to do anything more than what I can myself do. Company with the size of google shouldnt have any problems with implementing working solution for it, if single person working in his garage can do it.

> Are you calling for an end to anything with user generated content?

I have a solution for this problem in such way that it respects other people's copyright. The idea is to control the actions of end users by insisting that they need to create the material themselves. So a copy of hollywood movie isn't acceptable to the system (simply because we don't support video files), and our position is that they can create the needed content completely from scratch using our authoring tools.

While hollywood movies are a big problem in user-defined-content sites, other content like jpg, png or even plain .txt files have copyright attached to them. So the task for the platform is to ensure that the authors are actually creating the content manually themselves, instead of just linking or referring to content made by other people. This requirement can be fullfilled by requiring inputting the material in format which isn't available anywhere else, in form of script files which can only be created using our authoring tool. While the tool can use urls to external content, those url access patterns are being checked for copyright infringement.

So we don't expect other people do anything that we cannot ourselves prove to be working solution.

> > So the task for the platform is to ensure that the authors are actually creating the content manually themselves

> Yeah, about that. Viacom uploaded content to YouTube that Viacom made themselves.

If it's a test snippet what they use to test the youtube's community.

> YouTube allowed that upload.

That's what youtube is doing wrong. There's basically no license checking in youtube. They trust end users too much.If they allow premium content to be uploaded, they shouldat least confirm the company opinion before publishing the material.

While all content has copyright attached, high quality and premium content is in biggest danger of being pirated byillegal operators in the market.

note that youtube is no idea how the content was created. They didn't watch the creation process, they didn't provide tool which help creating the content, and they didnt bother to do copyright check on it. So why isn't this just another pirate site?

> Then Viacom sued YouTube for allowing that upload.

Viacom's copyright test found out that youtube's community didn't bother to do license checking before publishing the material, and youtube was sued as a result?

"Viacom's copyright test found out that youtube's community didn't bother to do license checking before publishing the material, and youtube was sued as a result?"

No, YouTube made sure they had the correct permission, Viacom confirmed they granted permission. Then, they turned around and sued them anyway. Viacom lied and/or were too incompetent to understand that they had granted permission. YouTube did nothing wrong in the cases of those particular files.

Please keep up. I know you're simple, but so is this. YouTube did everything you demanded, but they still got sued. No dismantling of independent production and locking in corporate control over all video content, as you are demanding, will stop this.

> No dismantling of independent production and locking in corporate control over all video content, as you are demanding, will stop this.

Simply because you can't figure out how to make it stop, does not mean it's impossible. Impossible designation requires something more cunning: It needs to be flagged as impossible when _all_ the ways of implementing it will cause problems. The problems does not need to be _absolutely impossible_, like people consider going against physics laws, but rather, "all alternatives were exhausted and no good one was found".

But your "stop the activity" can be easily proven to be false, the activity didn't exist in 1980's when youtube was not around. So stopping the activity is clearly possible.

the activity didn't exist in 1980's when youtube was not around. So stopping the activity is clearly possible.

Right, let's just turn back the clock and all will be swell! Traffic accidents didn't occur before automobiles, therefore it's possible have a zero accident rate! Fuck me, but you're dumb as a sack of rocks.

To be fair, he might have. The problem (or plan) is we don't know if his implementation is an actual product that is advertised on more than two buses, or if his "similar stuff" is the equivalent of Shiva Ayyadurai obtaining the copyright on a few lines of code called "EMAIL".

The latter, I believe. I forgot about the "advertising a niche internet product only on local buses thing then bemoaning the lack of an audience and wasted money", btw, that was hilarious! It does illustrate how far removed from reality this guy is though.

I can only judge based on the work presented thus far, however, and it really isn't the same as what he's claiming here.

It's worse than that. He's not only bemoaning the lack of audience and wasted money, he's demanding that governments on an international level foot his compensation bill. Of six million dollars or the equivalent in a mansion, whichever is the more expensive. While sucking off the RIAA's cock, at that.

There's also the fact that he made a post where he smugly declared himself a professional troll. He's the sort of fucktard that Lee Cheng of NewEgg would be fighting against. Wotta maroon!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

> Five words is such a small fraction of a song or book, to claim that amount violates copyright law is ridiculous.

It does violate. Whether any of the copyright owners care about it is different matter. But that's why copyright is dangerous, any of the owners can sue anyone simply because the markets have not been able to follow the required rules accurately enough to keep users away from illegal practises.

> Submit yourself to the nearest copyright enforcement authority.

Will do, next thing tomorrow. But I don't even have my own lawyer available, since this side of the europe those are difficult to come by, and guaranteed to be expensive.

Our side of the globe, the organisation nearest to RIAA is obviously called teosto. They keep sueing end users and companies if they don't buy license to play the music thatis being listened in the restaurants or discos. That'd be the one to try first I think -- their copyright experts are known to give good advice to pirates...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

> > "But that's why copyright is dangerous"

> so you're against copyright now?

Nope. Dangerous stuff just need to be handled with even more strictly following the rules, since it's not known beforehand when it'll blow to your face. You wouldn't handle explosives carelessly either, so why would you do that with copyright?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

Dangerous stuff just need to be handled with even more strictly following the rules

This, after you spent another thread vigorously arguing that Viacom and the RIAA shouldn't be penalized for their algorithms that can't even identify pirates correctly. If this is the sort of cavalier attitude you have to applying the law, when the very people who demand its enforcement can't even follow those rules, don't expect anyone else to follow suit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

"The RIAA gets a pass because they want me to have a six million dollar mansion."

If you believe that, I have some money that a friend of mine really needs to get out of Nigeria. Could you supply me with your bank details and a quick upfront payment to enable him to move the funds? You'll be guaranteed at least 20% of his $60 million fund if you do!

Re: Re: Re: Stolen property

"Why does pirates think that we want to see jar jar binks yet another time when there would be actual original content available if it wasn't flooded by someone's movie collection?"

The pirates in your head sure sound like morons.

Here in the real world, there's a bunch of original content being provided. It's coming from everywhere from independent productions to productions funded by the likes of Netflix, to major studios. The latter might be a little less willing to take chances at the moment, but that's always been the case to some degree. Even having said that, some of the biggest tentpole movies at the moment are based on material nobody thought would be considered seriously not so long ago.

The fact that you had to bitch about something that happened over 20 years ago, in a franchise that has been greatly course corrected since then and has still made more money than any of us commenting will ever see collectively says all that needs to be said.

Not according to the fair use aspects you insist on ignoring. Once again, the real world is hard for you, isn't it?

"You wouldn't steal a car, now would you?"

Oh dear, you're even parroting widely debunked crap that was laughed at even when it first appeared... 20 years ago? Are you commenting from the past, because that would be the only way you'd start to make sense.